Example research essay topic: Violent Criminal Interaction Ist - 2,013 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

During the late 1940 s, Sutherland (1947) advanced that explanations of crime and deviance are of either a situational or a dispositional nature. Additionally, he argued that of the two explanations, situational ones might be of the most importance. Hirschi & Gottfredson (1986) made a critical distinction in light of this issue, the distinction was between the terms crime and criminality. Crime, they proposed refers to events that presuppose a set of necessary conditions. Criminality on the other hand refers to stable differences across individuals in the propensity to commit criminal acts (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1986: 58). They went on to point out that criminality is necessary, but is not a sufficient condition for crime to occur, since crime requires important situational inducements.

Despite these propositions, social psychologists in the following decades tended to focus on dispositional theories of crime and deviance, that is, focusing on individual differences. There is a wealth of literature focusing on motivations and characteristics of criminal offenders (e. g. Cohen, 1955, as cited in Birkbeck & La Free, 1993; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960), and a modest amount attending to the victims of crime (Cohen, Kleugel, & Land, 1981). However the suggestion is well documented (e. g.

Hepburn, 1973; Athens, 1985; Luckenbill, 1977) that there is a need for research to focus on the sequential development and international dynamics of criminally violent situations. This is based on the notion that violence is, at least in part, situation ally determined (Felson & Steadman, 1983). Symbolic interaction ism is such a guiding approach in this field, so it is important to clarify what sets it apart from others in the area; there are two main important such points. Firstly, social interaction ist theory focuses on the objective fact of situations (as overlooked by criminologists), and secondly their subjective definition by actors (as overlooked by both opportunity and experimental psychologists). It was Goffmans (1967) who set the ball rolling as it were for symbolic interaction ism. He uniquely emphasized the nature of the violent criminal act as important, instead of just the criminal actor.

It was his notion of a character contest that inadvertently proposed one of the first violent criminal behaviour theories of its kind. An individual is said to demonstrate strong character when they stand correct and steady in the face of adversity, and weak character when he or she does not. He posited that a character contest is a special form of interpersonal action, since the confrontation involves (usually) both parties linked together in the common pursuit of demonstrating whose respective character is the strongest. Whoever wins the contest maintains honour and face and therefore positive self-image of self, whilst the weak character loses honour and face and is cast into a negative self-identity.

Luckenbill (1977) examined situated transactions as set out by Goffmans (1967) in an attempt to specify the processes involved. Luckenbill (1977) examined 70 transactions leading to criminal homicide; he reconstructed these transactions using all attainable accounts as resources. The analysis revealed that the transactions took a process ual form consisting of six stages. The fourth of these stages involves a working agreement being forged between the major participants, favouring violent means by which to settle the dispute.

However since Goffman's (1967) theory and Luckenbill's (1977) follow-up work provided such a major source of ideas for explaining interpersonal violence, it has been subject to much critical examination. The notion of the working agreement has proved the most controversial since participants in violent criminal situations do not typically agree that violence should be used in the resolution of a dispute (Athens, 1985). Even Luckenbill (1977) himself found that 14 % of the offenders in his sample killed before the fourth stage i. e.

before a working agreement could be forged between the two parties. Also Felson & Steadman (1983) declared that their findings on assaultive violent criminal acts cast serious doubt on Luckenbill's (1977) major conclusion that there is a working among participants appropriating the use of violence. Another fundamental criticism of character contests is that in reality, the meanings with which most violent criminal acts are instilled are very different from those of a character contest. Although the purpose of this essay is not to unduly dwell on the motivations of the offender, in the case of a character contest, displaying strong character maintains honour and face, that is, pride and no shame.

This is not however the meaning with which criminal perpetrators often attribute their violent actions e. g. jealousy, hate, disgust (Athens, 1985). Despite these major criticisms, Goffman's (1967) work provided a basis for a theory explaining both the nature of the violent criminal action and the actors. It is from this work that a more inclusive, complex theory of violent criminal behaviour was developed; the foundations of such a theory can be found in the Impression Management Approach (IMA).

In accordance with Goffman's (1967) theory, IMA upholds that violent escalation occurs when an individual is cast into a negative situational identity and retaliates in order to save face. In addition, the basic determinant of aggression is believed to be perceived intentional attack (i. e. Luckenbill's 1977 stage two). An insult is said toaltercast (or place) the target into a negative situational identity and it is through retaliation that an actor attempts to nullify that identity and alterant the initial aggressor into an unfavourable identity.

A variety of research methods have been employed in order to investigate symbolic interaction ism. Evidence from observational studies of aggression on children (Rausch, 1965, as cited in Birkbeck & La Free, 1993), participant observation (Horowitz & Schwartz, 1974), and the examination of homicide police reports (Hepburn, 1973; Athens, 1978; Luckenbill, 1977) have all demonstrated that retaliation manifests face-saving concerns. In his study, Felson (1982) relies on three different sample groups namely: ex-mental patients, ex-criminal offenders, and a third group thought to be representative of the general population. One of his hypotheses predicted that participants would be more likely to verbally attack an antagonist during a conflict if they had been insulted themselves. Respondents were interviewed about incidents in which they had been involved at differing levels of severity.

The self-reports were analysed and in support of the afore mentioned hypothesis, it was found that respondents were more likely to engage in verbal dispute (as opposed to be angry but do nothing) when they had been insulted. In a similar study Felson & Steadman (1983) found that victims of homicides were more aggressive than those of assaults i. e. the victims of homicides engaged in more identity attacks (p< . 06), physical attacks (p< . 05), and threats (p< . 05) than did the victims of assaults.

These results were further examined to reveal that antagonists appeared to respond in kind for particular types of aggressive acts. Felson & Steadman (1983) found that identity attacks from one party were likely to lead to identity counterattacks from the other party (r = . 38), this is in accordance with Felson's (1982) finding. Similarly physical attacks from one antagonist often lead to physical counterattacks from the other antagonist (r = . 30) (see also Fritzon & Ridgway, 2001). These results are crucial to IMA in that they strongly suggest the successive behaviours of a participant are more a function of the antagonists behaviour than they are of their own earlier action, thus demonstrating the importance of interaction in these incidents. In Felson & Steadman's (1983) study, they analysed the characteristics of offenders and victims and their interaction. Through examination of 500 case files of disputes leading to criminal violence they concluded that victims of homicide and assault were of a similar age and sex.

There were however significant difference in the variables associated with the victims behaviour during the incident, finding that individuals were more likely to be killed if they displayed a weapon or were intoxicated with drugs or alcohol. This is consistent with the interaction ist approach in that the behaviour of the victim seems to have affected the behaviour of the offender. Other social psychology studies have also investigated the interaction between participant variables, especially that of gender. A further hypothesis in Felson's (1982) research predicted that males were more likely than females to attack an antagonist verbally when they had been insulted. This was based on the assumption (strongly related to IMA) that males may be more concerned with their identities in conflict situations than females. This assumption is justified in terms of traditional gender roles; for masculine identity, retaliation is more normative (From, Macaulay & Thome, 1977, as cited in Felson, 1982).

IMA takes this to explain that negative identities are more likely attributed to males who backdoor when they have been attacked (insulted) than to females. Felson's (1982) examination of self-reports revealed some interesting and somewhat unpredicted results. In support of his hypothesis, it was found that an insult increases the odds of a verbal dispute 3. 2 times when the respondent is male, and 2. 2 when female. Furthermore, a highly significant three-way interaction was found involving severity of outcome, sex of respondent and sex of antagonist. This showed that hostilities are more likely to involve physical violence when males conflict with other males. The odds of a physical dispute versus a verbal dispute increases 2. 1 times when both parties are male, as opposed to both female.

The likelihood of physical versus verbal dispute for two males is 4. 3 times more likely than for cross-sex conflicts. These significant results support the view that individuals retaliate when cast into negative identities, particularly when these identities are important to them. This in turn implies that males are more concerned with their identities in aggressive conflicts than females. Although it is clear that the results of the discussed studies generally support an IMA to aggression and violence, the relationship between insult and expression of anger in a verbal attack is far from perfect. Besides the moderate amount of measurement error anticipated in the variables, there are many other ways of eliciting aggression apart from insult. Furthermore, it may be unintelligible to retaliate in some situations, for example if an individual fears further, more severe, retaliation from the opponent.

It is flaws like these that disparage inferences drawn from IMA studies Despite their methodological and theoretical difficulties, interaction ist studies have played an instrumental role in bringing the criminal situation as a unit of investigation in the study of crime and deviance. Moreover, Ima's emphasis on the subjective role of the offender serves to criticise both prior and ongoing research ignoring such factors (e. g. Cloward & Ohlin, 1960) It is clear on the basis of interaction ist research that violent criminal acts are not a one-sided event with an unaware victim undertaking a passive role. Rather, they are the outcome of a dynamic interchange between an offender and victim. Given the importance of situational variables in the determination of behaviour, it seems obvious to investigate the effect which others present in the situation may have on the criminal outcome.

In line with IMA, there is experimental literature showing that the mere presence of a third-party can lead the conflict to become more severe (Borden, 1975, as cited in Felson, 1982; Felson, River & Siegel, 1984). Felson (1978) suggests that third-party presence in a conflict raises the identity costs of backing down to an antagonist and therefore generally conflicts are likely to be more severe in front of an audience. He tested this hypothesis but found only partial support (Felson, 1982). It seems that simply the presence of a third-party is not sufficient to cause the conflict to escalate. It has now been established that third-parties may play a variety of roles in criminally violent situations, namely instigating, mediating, escalating or facilitating of criminal violence (Decker, 1995).

There is experimental evidence supporting the suggestion that the outcome of the violent situation can be affected by the perceived values of bystanders (Felson et al. , 1984). Instigating actions by third-parties indicate to the potential offender that the audience is favourable to aggression; mediation on the other hand...

Research essay sample on Violent Criminal Interaction Ist